![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 58. Go back in thread:
Posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 16:21:24
In reply to More about Lou's proposal, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 15:45:18
> Friends,
> There is now in place a new rule that says that one can not ask Dr. Hsiung about his thinking if they have in all the years here asked him about his thinking as to if he thinks that a statement is or is not acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum. But rules can be undone and replaced by a better rule that could be more suppotive and civil,right?No, that's not the rule. The rule is a limit of three (3) posts objecting/"requesting a determination"/whatever about a specific poster THAT HAVE BEEN JUDGED ACCEPTABLE.
If Dr Bob finds that the posts in question are not within the guidelines for the site, there is not a limit. The limit only applies when the posts questioned are judged to be within the guidelines.
The idea is to limit the number of spurious requests.
> My proposal here IMO could offer a way to satify both sides on the issue as to if one can ask on the administrative forum a request for a determination , which IMO is like a request for clairification.
> What does anyone think?
> LouNo, your proposal does not seem to offer a way to satisfy both sides. It only seems like a way to satisfy you.
For your satisfaction, have you considered creating your own forum? It's not hard, and I am even willing to help you. The script this forum is based on is free, and you would then be able to make any rule that made you happy.
Here, though, this is Dr Bob's site, and therefore Dr Bob's rules. If we want to be here, we have to follow his rules -- very much in the same way we'd have to play by his rules if we were sitting in his living room.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 16:31:42
In reply to Re: More about Lou's proposal » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 16:21:24
Racer,
You wrote about what I did correct in the succeeding post and it is that one here can not ask Dr. Hsiung about his thinking as to if he thinks a statement is acceptable or not {if Dr. Hsiung has said that his thinking was that the statement in question is acceptable to three requests about what the same poster wrote}.My apology.
But the overiding issue to me here is that I beklive that I can noet know what one thinks unless I ask them. This is why I am proposing a way to allow others to ask Dr. Hsiung about his thinking without being sanctioned because one does not know what his thinking is and asks him and he has said that his thinking is that the statement in question is acceptable 3 times for the requests about the same poster.
Instead of trying to write that out all the time, could we use something like,{3 same poster}to take the place of that long statemnet?
Lou
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 16:39:38
In reply to Re: More about Lou's proposal » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 16:21:24
Racer,
You wrote,[...limit the number of spurious requests..]
I do not consider any request by me or anyone else that is asking how Dr. Hsiung thinks about a statement in relation to his rules. I consider all requests of that nature to have the potential to foster support and education as per the goals of the forum. Could you tell me why would a request be deemed to be spurious if the poster is asking for help to find out how Dr. Hsiung thinks about his rules?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 16:45:03
In reply to Re: More about Lou's proposal » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 16:21:24
Racer,
You wrote,[...No, you proposal...only seems like a way to satify you...].
Sorry, but could you explain whay my proposal could not also satisfy others that would want to ask Dr. Hsiung about his thinking without being sanctioned because he thinks that a statement is acceptable? In asking as to if something is acceptable or not, is not the asker asking for either way that Dr. Hsiung thinks?
Lou
Posted by Phillipa on August 13, 2006, at 17:28:16
In reply to Lou's reply to Racer-olysatyu, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 16:45:03
Lou sorry but I like things the way they are. And things have been running rather smoothly in my opinion for about a year. Sorry Love Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 17:34:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Racer-olysatyu » Lou Pilder, posted by Phillipa on August 13, 2006, at 17:28:16
Phillipa,
You wrote,[...I like things the way that they are...].
Could you write what the things are that you like in relation to your word,"Sorry"?
Lou?
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 17:48:20
In reply to Re: More about Lou's proposal » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 16:21:24
Racer,
You wrote,[...we have to follow his (Dr. Hsiung's) rules...].
I am not against following his rules at all. It has been and is now and will always be that I aggree with rules, but that I think that rules are more civil, and could facillitate more support if they are well-defined and applied equally. If they are, then they are easier to follow. My asking Dr. Hsiung is so that his rules could have the potential to be more easier to follow after he tells his thinking on the matter for all of the members of the forum, for his thinking being posted is known then. That I do not think that anyone should be sanctioned by asking him, in any situation,IMO could foster more support and education by members knowing what he thinks about what is asked of him.
The asking of Dr. Hsiung as to if his thinking is that something is acceptable or not is to be able to know what his thinking is, for I can not know someone's thinking unless I ask them.
The administration forum is for discussing policy of the forum, and I believe that I have a contribution to be made concernng that policy.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 18:27:07
In reply to Re: More about Lou's proposal » Lou Pilder, posted by Racer on August 13, 2006, at 16:21:24
Racer,
You wrote,[...have you considered creating your own forum...]?
I do not want to have my own forum. I came here about 6 years ago when it was a small port with few ships. I decieded then to create an Island that we could build a Beacon of Light for those to find a Haven of Rest so that they could Overcome the shakles of depression and addiction.
I wanted to create a Garden of Pardise, not for people to go to heaven, but for the Lost Sheep of The House of Babble.
But my sails are empty and cannot reach the Island that I wanted to build a City of Peace now.
I will cast myself off now, for darkness comes before the dawn.
Lou
Posted by Toph on August 13, 2006, at 18:36:57
In reply to Lou's reply to Racer » Racer, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 17:48:20
...My asking Dr. Hsiung is so that his rules could have the potential to be more easier to follow after he tells his thinking on the matter for all of the members of the forum, for his thinking being posted is known then...
Hi Lou,
You describe the need for multible posts as if they are meant to benefit the group. I concur with Racer's observation in the post above in which it is suggested that multiple post are primarily to satisfy your needs. If others on this forum want clarification, they can post for themselves. I do not want to argue the point, but I was glad to see Bob respond to what many participants viewed as a problem that, at the time, caused disruption.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 18:44:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Racer, posted by Toph on August 13, 2006, at 18:36:57
Toph,
You wrote,[...as if they are to benifit the group...I concur...that multiple posts are to satisfy your need...]
Could you explain;
A. What your rational is that you say that my multiple posts are to satisfy my needs? what do you think are those needs?
B. If Dr. Hsiung tells his thinking on a matter per the asking of a member, are you saying that others do not also benifit from his answer to how he thinks? If so, why do they not?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 19:04:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Racer, posted by Toph on August 13, 2006, at 18:36:57
Toph,
You wrote,[...multiple posts...]
Consecutive posts are what you mean?
Consecutive posts occur not because I am telling anyone that they can not post. There are many reasons that I can think of that could cause consecutive posts to appear. I do not consider anyone's consecutive posts to be in any way not supportive, for on the contrary, I believe that posts are supportive on their own or not, regardless as to if they are consecutive or not, for people here are free to post or not post in a thread as to their will. So thearfore, I do not create consecutive posts, they happen.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 19:33:06
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Racer, posted by Toph on August 13, 2006, at 18:36:57
Toph,
You wrote,[...if others want clarification they can post for themselves...].
I do not generally post for others here. However, I have received many thanks from all over the world, some posted here, that say things like;
A. Lou , you make my day
B. Lou, you are worth the price of addmission here..]
C. Lou, you have helped me sit a little bit taller today...]
D. Lou, keep up the good work
E. other similar posts and emails to me.
If you are referring to my requests for a determination, even if Iam not posting for another, the answer that DR. Hsiung gives to the forum is to all the forum, not just me, so others could also benifit from knowing Dr. Hsiung's thinking.
If we can not ask Dr. Hsiung what his thinking is in regards to the guidlines of the forum,for any reason, how else could one know what his rules entail? Would not it be better to know than to not know? And would not others benifit from Dr. Hsiung telling the forum of his thinking?
When someone asks Dr. Hsiung to tell his thinking on a matter of as to if a statement is acceptable or not, for any reason, he could say either it is or it is not acceptable to his thinking. But the asker is asking only for one of those answers. And the asker is asking because he/she wants to know. Is wanting to know, for any reason, uncivil?
Lou
Posted by Toph on August 13, 2006, at 21:32:03
In reply to Lou's reply to Toph-benfitgrp? » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 18:44:43
I don't know what your needs are Lou, but you have the right to attempt to have them met here, I suppose, as long as you stay within the rules. You also have the right to attempt to change the rules, as you know. I can't speak for others, but I'd like to believe that you have good intentions in your interactions here.
How do you think A J Hawk will do in Green Bay?
Posted by Jost on August 14, 2006, at 21:56:24
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 15:12:24
> Dinah,
> I am in favor of you withdrawing your offer.
> LouLou could you do me the favor of answering a question:
Why are you in favor of Dinah's withdrawing her offer?
I missed your explanation of the reasons that you had for this.
Thanks, Jost
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2006, at 3:54:32
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Racer, posted by Toph on August 13, 2006, at 18:36:57
> No, your proposal does not seem to offer a way to satisfy both sides. It only seems like a way to satisfy you.
>
> Racer> I concur with Racer's observation in the post above in which it is suggested that multiple post are primarily to satisfy your needs.
>
> TophSorry, but please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad people.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2006, at 3:56:14
In reply to Lou's views about the {3} rules, posted by Lou Pilder on August 13, 2006, at 10:36:17
> Please note that in my requests for a determination, I do not consider that a request is an {objection} ... My requests, to me, are for me to have more definition and clarification about the rules
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all requests for determinations were objections. If they're about the rules in general, they're not limited to 3 and can be posted. I may not respond to them all, but others may respond to the ones I don't. It may not, however, be possible to clarify all issues sufficiently for all posters.
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2006, at 8:48:12
In reply to Re: Lou's views » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2006, at 3:56:14
DR. Hsiung,
You wrote,[...about rules in general...not limited..]
Your rule of 3 for those requesting that you write a determination as to if a statement is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum says that I can not email you my request if the request concerns what a member posted and that member is in the catagory of having on the record over the years 3 other posts that involve other requests for a determination from me as to if something that was posted by the poster is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum, and you determined, that in your thinking, those 3 were acceptable. This, then , rules out my emailing or posting my request to you the url involved for those members, does it not?
This means that if there is a post by one of those members that could have the potnetial to arrouse antisemitic feelings,or accuse Jews of killing Christ or defame me, that I will be expelled from the forum if I email you asking that you look at the post and tell me what your thinking is about it, right? The post also can not be posted by anyone to request that you make a determination about the acceptability of it.
Then does this not close those doors to me to ask you to look at the post to make a determination about it?
When I ask you to make a determination, I have a proper foundation to do so, do I not? (prima facie)
You see, when I requet for your determination it is because at first looking at the statement in question there is something that can be seen that needs to be clarified as to if it is acceptable or not and I am asking for you to write your determination of that, because I do not know what your thinking is. The fact that your thinking is whatever it may be, I do not think that I, or anyone else, should be sanctioned for not knowing what your thinking is and asking you to reveal such. That is why I make the request.
If there is a proper foundation for the request, that alone is suffitiant in any U.S. jurisdiction to request a determination for acceptability.
So on it's face, a statement could be thought by one to be unacceptable and a request for a determination is not uncivil in any U.S. jurisdiction. In fact, it is very supportive, for in all U.S. jurisdictions, the laws or rules welcome debate. There is due-process afforded to all. Your not allowing me to ask you on the basis that your thinking was that 3 other statements from the same person you determined were acceptable, does not address the new request because it would be junping to a conclusion, would it not, to conclude ahead of time that the statement was in your thinking acceptable? I do not feel comfortable with your writing that your past decisions affect future results. If there is on its face a potential for a statement to arrouse antisemitic feelings, then what your thinking is does not change that, but just allows the statement or not. The potential for others to see what I see is still there, and if I can see it, so could others. The fact that you see it differently, does not mean that others can not see it as it is and is not your rule to not post what could lead {others} to feel accused or put down, not what could lead you to feel accused or put down, am I correct?
The posting of quotes that have been used for 2000 years by antisemites to justify their murder of Jewish children are either acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of your forum. If I ask you your thinking as to if those statemnts are accptable or not, if your answer is that they are acceptable, does not your saying that they are acceptable only say that they are acceptable to you, not to me or others?
But there is my great fear that others here could think that if you say that those statements are acceptable by you, by the nature that you are unwilling to reply at all as to if they are acceptable or not, that the potential for others to think that those statemnt ar civil and supportive causes me great pain.
There are a great number of posts on the forum left unaddressed by you that I think has the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on the forum and I am asking that you retract your rule that prohibits me from emailing you those so that you sanction each and every one of those as I send them to you so that those statements that foster the hate of 2000 years toward the Jews do not get your endorsement by the nature that others could think that because they are left unsanctioned.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Toph on August 15, 2006, at 9:02:28
In reply to Re: please be civil » Racer » Toph, posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2006, at 3:54:32
> > I concur with Racer's observation in the post above in which it is suggested that multiple post are primarily to satisfy your needs.
> >
> > Toph> Sorry, but please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
>
> BobI can assure you Bob that I did not just jump to this conclusion, and I don't know why the suggestion that someone is endeavoring to satisfy their own needs should necessarily be a put down. Is there any way to discuss another poster's motives without there being at least some possibility of that person feeling accused or put down? Moreover, aren't you making assumptions about my motives that might make me feel accused or put down as well?
Toph
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2006, at 9:23:23
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on August 15, 2006, at 9:02:28
Friends,
It is written here that Dr. Hsiung thinking is that the statemnt
[...miltiple posts are... to satisfy your (Lou's) needs..]
A. jumps to a conclusion about the poster (Lou)
B. could lead Lou to feel accused and/or put down
The question before us by the sanctioned poster is if Dr. Hsiung's sanction is valid.
First, the question as to if Dr. Hsiung is correct in that I feel accused or put down. Only I can answer that , but Dr. Hsijng could generalize and use his thinking as to if a reasonable person could feel accused, and then if a reasonable person could feel accused, then Lou could feel accused, for Lou is a reasonable person, is he not?
So it really does not matter in this case how I really feel.
Then there is the issue about jumping to a conclusion about the poster...
Lou
Posted by Toph on August 15, 2006, at 9:39:45
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on August 15, 2006, at 9:02:28
If I repeatedly posted that I eat gummy worms to help all of those who are starving in the world, and another poster suggested that maybe I ate gummy worms because I am hungry, I don't see why this alternative viwpoint on my motivation should necessarily be uncivil - even if I felt accused or put down, unless all comments about a person's motives are uncivil.
I do like gummy worms, btw.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2006, at 9:42:38
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-acusdptd?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2006, at 9:23:23
Friends,
Now the question about that the poster is sanctioned for writing what Dr. Hsiung refers to as jumping to a conclusion about the poster in relation that [...multiple posts are to satify the poster's (Lou's) own needs.
Now what I would like to clear up here is what is meant by multiple posts. In the previous discussions, they were about {consecutive posts}. So if we are meaning here that the poster was referring to consecutive posts, then let me say;
A. Consecutive posts happen, not that I create them. I do not tell others that they can not post at any time that they choose. So if one wants to post after my first or second post, then there would not be 3 consecutive posts. But the point here is that I do not intentionally write consecutive posts, for there is the opportunity for others to post at their will so that if there are consecutive posts, would it not only mean that others did not post, not that I posted consecutive posts?
But then there is the issue about "needs"...
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2006, at 10:24:37
In reply to Re: Lou's views » Lou Pilder, posted by Dr. Bob on August 15, 2006, at 3:56:14
Dr. Hsiung,
As of now I know of no way that I can ask you to write a dertemination if the poster of the statement is in the catagory that has had 3 requests deemed acceptable in your thinking.
Thearfore, I am requesting the following so that I have due-processs to patition the administration for grievences.
A. That a special office be created here that deals with those posts that you say I can not ask you about. Like a special committee.
B. The people that are in this office be from outside the administration, but not outside the membership of the forum.
C. That there be 5 of these members
D. That I submit to those 5 members my request that I am not allowed to ask of you, for them to make a determination as to if the statement in question is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
E. The 5 members will render a decision within 2 days. There could be a unanomous or split decision. A forman for the majority opinon and a forum for the minority opinion will post both opinions.
F. You will then still have the right to choose which opinion that your thinking accepts, but if you accept the minority opinion, thst you will write your opinion as to why you reject the majority opinion.
Now I think that something like that could foster support for the forum and allow the asking to you about those posts that you are unwilling to sanction.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2006, at 14:23:41
In reply to Re: please be civil » Toph, posted by Toph on August 15, 2006, at 9:39:45
Friends,
It is written here hypothetical situation involving gummy worms. The example says that,(A) a person posts repeatedly that he/she eats gummy worms so that all the starving people in the world could be helped
(B).Another poster suggests that the motive for that person to eat gummy worms is that they are hungery.
The question before us is:
A. Is it civil to accuse the poster that stated his/her motive that he/she eats gummy worms, that the motive that they gave,ie, that it was to help the starving people in the world, is seen by them to be something else,ie in this case, because they are hungery.
There is the issue to be deceided.
Now there are several issues here. First, is it reasonable for someone to have a motive to eat gummy worms so that it could help starving people? And is the answer to that relevant?
My resoning is that whatever the poster gave as her/his reason for eating gummy worms, that reason is real to him/her regardless as to if it is rational. Now if this was not a mental health community, there could be an argument as to if what the person believed was rational. But by what authority does anyone have here to impute their ideas as to the motive of another here?
Lou
Posted by Toph on August 15, 2006, at 14:59:54
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post-gmwms, posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2006, at 14:23:41
Posted by Toph on August 15, 2006, at 17:00:46
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post-gmwms, posted by Lou Pilder on August 15, 2006, at 14:23:41
...by what authority does anyone have here to impute their ideas as to the motive of another here?
> Lou
>
I think I understood your post better the second time I read it. Anyone can offer their opinion on another's motive here, it's whether it is deemed civil or not. Certainly many descriptions of motive, even those offered as support, could be viewed as accusatory or unsupportive. But not all need be, and especially not in a supportive group. Examining various reasons for why we do certain things can be enlightening, constructive and supportive. Then again, some people (and I should include myself sometimes) are exquisitively sensitive to any form of feedback.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.